I was playing the original Z.O.E. earier today and noticed something that I had missed. Well we all know that as the game progresses, ADA begins to develope humanity. But in some scenes, it actually sounds as if she is going to cry. Did anyone else notice this? One of the scenes was when Leo refuses to eject out of Jehuty during the battle with Viola. In the following cinema, ADA thanks Leo and says "What you did earlier.......saving me.......it was very........illogical. But when she said it, her voice had gotten really scketchy, as if she was about to cry.

Another part was during the ending, when ADA says the classic line of the series. "This is what I live for.........this is the purpose of living........for those who have no life". When she says "for those who have no live", she really sounded as if she was trying to hold back from crying. Did anyone else notice this. I think that maybe ADA wants to be human. Because I certain parts in the game, she shows signs of being sorry for being a simple computer. Like whe Leo asks if Factory 2 is ADA's "Home" she replies, " No......don not try to personify me........I am not a person.......I am.......I am a simple program........nothing more". She said it as if she wishes she was somthing more.

Maybe not crying so much as trouble vociferating such complex ideas as friendship and destiny. As she says herself, they go against logic and are difficult things for a human to fully conceptualise, let alone an AI.

It wouldn't make sense for ADA to cry since I doubt any A.I would have feelings.

I think it may be the fact that she's trying to comprehend and understand Leo's human decisions and actions, however illogical they may seem to her, in an attempt to bond with Leo.

Honestly, I wonder if it was even intentional. I've noticed in some games, like in the original Resident Evil, I swear the VA's are laughing during some scenes - like the Jill Sandwich cutscene - and I bet it wasn't purposeful. On the other hand, Kojima is very deliberate about the writing and acting during cutscenes, so I guess it's difficult to tell exactly the reason for it.

*sigh* shame we aren't getting ZOE 3, but at least ZOE 2 ended with a good conclusion.

I'm convinced that even if Kojima made ZOE 3, it wouldn't be the sequel we're expecting. I look at the evolution of the Metal Gear series, especially the jump from Metal Gear Solid 3 to Metal Gear Solid 4, and the progression from there to Peace Walker and Ground Zeros. It's not that the games are getting worse, but I feel like Kojima's brand changed after Subsistence came out, or some time during the development of MGS4. The Metal Gear formula was pretty much static between 1990 and 2006, but after that Kojima games changed and it seems like they aren't going to try to the old pacing and story style and gameplay of the Metal Gear games ever again, and I fear Zone of the Enders would get the same treatment.

I feel like this change of correlated with the story progression of the Metal Gear series. Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3 were bombshells in terms of story, and Portable Ops, 4, Peace Walker, and 5 are simply reactions to those two games. Instead of paving the way for new story points, the games now are just filler and reaction. Zone of the Enders has not been relegated to this yet, but I still think a new sequel would be very different than what we are expecting.

If, and I stress if we ever see another ZOE, I look at the time between releases to change the formula of the series. Fundamentals will remain the same, but other things will really change. Take a look at three other series that came out at pretty similar times to ZOE1 and 2 and then got sequels quite some time after.

Deus Ex: The fundamentals of the series, a first person RPG set in the future fusing elements of dystopia and utopia, centering on physical augmentation, did not change at all between Deus Ex: Invisible War and Deus Ex: Human Revolution. In fact, despite the fact that the game is set before Deus Ex, there was a progression of the artform of the series, but, despite all the similarity, there was still a great deal of difference. Just changing the augmentation form, going from the nanotechnological to the obviously physical, made a great deal of difference. But then, you also have the changes in gameplay style attributed to the bosses that you fight, which, apparently, were done by a different studio than the rest of the game (I don't know why). Now, Human Revolution still, obviously, feels like a part of the series, but there were also still changes to the franchise.

Max Payne: Once again, Max Payne as a series did not change. Bullet Time was still a big feature, Max's narration still drove the story, gunplay was still the game's biggest selling point. However, just changing the cutscenes from graphic novel panels appearing on the screen to full cutscenes already changes a great deal of elements from the previous two releases. Then there were the story changes. Max Payne 1 and 2, both being set in New York, felt exactly the same. You felt like going from 1 to 2 was as seamless as going from chapter to chapter in a book, or episode to episode on a TV series DVD release, despite the change in graphics, they didn't seem like they should have been two separate releases. Max Payne 3, on the other hand, produces big changes by shifting the narrative from New York (there are New Jersey flashbacks) to Sau Paulo, Brazil. This was helped by the entirely new cast of characters, with Max being the only one left behind from the past two. Now, a lot of this has to do with the fact that the series changed hands, going from Remedy (who is now a first-party developer for MicroShaft) to Rockstar I-Don't-Remember-Which-One-But-I-Think-They're-Canadian. Nevertheless, Max Payne 3 still feels as ingrained into the series as the other two.

Red Faction: Herein lies the biggest change. The basics of the series, revolving around geography destruction, have not changed. The setting, not counting the second game, has not changed. No, Red Faction changed its perspective. Going from a pretty strictly linear first person shooter (with a little opportunity for branching paths, but not much, especially in Red Faction 2) to an open world third person shooter was a pretty big change. Nonetheless, the basics behind the series were exactly the same. You were still given shittons of weapons and told to blow stuff up. In Red Faction 1, it was pretty much anything, as opposed to the later games when it was primarily reduced to buildings, but you could still do it.

These three examples prove, I feel, that fundamentals can remain, even in large changes between installments. Deus Ex, Max Payne, and Red Faction were, I believed, the best examples to choose, thanks to their release windows being around those of ZOE1 and 2.

I actually wouldn't mind a ZOE game where you don't use Jehuty, but in fact, are an ace LEV pilot!

Or at the very least..... a filler prequel where you get to play as Leo and how he got the Vic Viper.

But still... the idea of piloting an LEV and experiencing the clunky movements will definitely enlighten users to the limitations of the mechs, and it would be more skill-demanding for the players to use their environments to their advantage to defeat bosses that Jehuty would have otherwise mopped the floor with.

Rather than focusing on all-blade gameplay, the LEV's would have a main focus on the use of long-range weapons and trying to survive.

This would not only evolve the game as a whole, but also bring new gameplay mechanics into the mix.

Hell, you could even try using stealth with the LEV's by using optic camoflauge, or trying to sneak past enemies under the radar!

@Bandage131 You could even throw Fallout on that list as well. Although the series changed developers, the original build for Fallout 3, Van Buren, looked very similar to how Fallout 3 actually did end up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Buren_(video_game)

You're point is spot on, though. It's not that these new games are bad, but they're different. I'm content with the way the ZOE games are now, though. Similarly, I'm sure fans of those games you listed would have preferred that they stayed closer to the original formula (Resident Evil fans understand that point all too well).

@helldiver450
That doesn't seem all that likely. I mean, it'd be interesting, yeah, but it would completely go against the focus of the game, which is fast-paced, flowy movement. I could see them do that as some sort of side missions or something like that, but never as the main portion of the game.